quote:As a result, the salary cap would climb from $58 million in 2012-13 to approximately $71 million in 2017-18, the last season of the contract.

Am I reading that the NHL owners are putting a proposal forward that would set the salary cap this season at 58M? Without a salary rollback?

17 teams are currently over 58M in salary for next season, and some of them (including my Canucks) significantly so. How do owners for BOS//MIN/VAN/CGY/PHI/SJ etc think they're going to be able to shed 10-12M EACH in salary before the beginning of the season?

Perhaps the CBA will allow for cutting player contracts without cap issues? Buyouts?

quote:As a result, the salary cap would climb from $58 million in 2012-13 to approximately $71 million in 2017-18, the last season of the contract.

Am I reading that the NHL owners are putting a proposal forward that would set the salary cap this season at 58M? Without a salary rollback?

17 teams are currently over 58M in salary for next season, and some of them (including my Canucks) significantly so. How do owners for BOS//MIN/VAN/CGY/PHI/SJ etc think they're going to be able to shed 10-12M EACH in salary before the beginning of the season?

Perhaps the CBA will allow for cutting player contracts without cap issues? Buyouts?

I am just spitballing here, but . . . there would have t be special provisions in any new agreement for a bulk of teams that are significantly over the new cap, if that's what happened. Yep, my Leafers are there too, for sure.

It sure seems like we have jumped suddenly to phase 4, even though there wasn't much of a freeze period. To me, this is such a great sign . . . it truly appears as if both sides do honestly want to avoid a lockout at all costs. Nice!

An answer to the question of how the teams with payrolls over the cap would be handled is in this article. Teams would put 11% into a escrow account effectively paying them less, now while allowing them to use the escrow amounts in future years. Thats interesting to say the least. A player signed currently x amount of $ could then be payed less now to suit the needs of the teams cap, but lose no income overall. Let me know if I understand this correctly, as the article give good details, but lacks in specifics. Glad I dont have to be an accountant for an NHL team.

I like that the proposal is for a 6 year term. Once every 4 years is too frequent for a potential work stoppage. The average fan hates hearing about a potential lockout every 4 years. Hard to maintain enthusiasm for your team when you know a lost season could be on the horizon 3 to 4 years after the last negotiations finalized.

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 08/29/2012 : 12:33:16

I agree with Joshua. The average fan hates hearing about the prospects of a lockout.

As it relates to the fans of the game, it's interesting what Gary Bettman had to say about the fans during the CBA negotiations which took place during the 2004-2005 lockout season.

"The fact of the matter is, more than a majority of our teams would use the opportunity of economic stability to lower their ticket prices." Gary Bettman

Hmmm. The fact of the matter is that ticket prices have risen 39% since the 2004-2005 lockout. I wonder if Bettman will make the same promise this time?

Meanwhile, Bettman's earnings more than doubled since the 2004-2005 lockout. Recognizing that league revenues rose from $2.1 billion to $3.2 billion since the 2004-2005 lockout, some people may suggest that the league commissioner deserved multiple-raises over this period of time. (Bettman made $3.7 million in 2004, and his earnings are now reported to be $8 million.)

But what about the fans? The league is taking in more revenue. As a result, players salaries have risen from an average of $1.45 million to $2.45 million since the lockout. And ticket prices keep going up along the way. No one puts a gun to the fans' heads to pay more and more for hockey tickets, so it's unlikely that a new CBA will have any impact on the price of hockey tickets.

As it appears to me, the owners want a bigger piece of the pie (revenues which have escalated since the 2004-2005 lockout, and despite global economic conditions), and they're looking to claw back the players' share, and I highly doubt they will share any savings with their fans. It's supply and demand after all, and if the demand is there, ticket prices will continue to go up, despite whatever concessions the owners get in a new CBA.

And I suspect this time around, Gary Bettman has been advised not to repeat what he said during the last lockout.

- the NHL's goal is not to you happy. Thier goal is to make money. Ticket prices will be as high as the market will tolerate. Clearly people are willing to pay as attendance has increased as fast or faster than the increase in ticket prices. Even if the league gets their way ticket prices will not drop. The price of the ticket is not linked to player salaries or league revenue. It will always cost as much as can be tolerated.- NHL revenue has increases by more than the rate of ticket price increases. This means the NHL is getting bigger marketing dollars then ever before. Who is responsible for that? - Before you look at Bettman's salary you might want to take a look at Donald Fehr's salary. It's more than a million more per year Bettman's. Think about that for a second: the millionaire players are spending more than a million more each year to protect their income than the billionaire owners are spending on Bettman.-Bettman is the lowest paid leader of the pro sports league even though the NHL is 3rd in revenue and profit. - Bettman is doing exactly what the owners want him to Edo 20 yrs in the league and now three labour issues later should tell you enough by now. If he was not doing what the owners wanted he would have been sent packing years ago.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 08/29/2012 : 14:02:43

I don't disagree with your additional points Beans, and I'm not sure if you even disagree with what I presented, just that you wanted to add your two cents.

I have no problem with Bettman earning whatever he earns. (Or whatever anyone negotiates for themselves, as long as it's done honestly.) I just presented his salary increase(s) in context with other facts, these facts which have merit, no different than you presenting what Donald Fehr earns.

As far as expecting the NHL (or Bettman) making me happy, I don't expect them to do so, expect for the product on the ice. After all, if fans are not happy, who's going to fill the seats? So owners of hockey teams must consider this, and balance this with ticket prices. Obviously ticket prices will be as high as the market will tolerate. No argument there.

But I want to emphasize my point about Bettman's quote from the last CBA negotiations. He made the point that a better CBA would deliver better pricing (and in some cases lower ticket pricing), which was really a silly thing to say. It was like saying "Hey fans, we're on your side. The players are being greedy here. As soon as we get a better CBA, we will pass along these savings to you." Pretty ingenuous thing to say at the time, and once again, I highly doubt he would make the same comment/assertion today.

The NHL revenues have increased by more than 50% since the lock out. Using your stat, ticket prices increases by 39%. Does that not mean that the NHL did what they said they were going to do? Ticket prices may not have been lowered but they did not increase at the same rate as revenue.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 08/29/2012 : 15:05:58

Using this presentation, I would argue that the league revenues have risen primarily because fans are paying more for their tickets. And hey, that's fine if the fans are willing participants.

But for the commissioner to state that tickets prices would be lower based on a palatable CBA (as Bettman stated in 2004) is disingenuous (not ingenuous as stated earlier).

To state that revenues went up by 50% (which is because fans paid 39% more on average) does not translate into the fans paying less than what they were before for tickets.

As you stated earlier, ticket prices are set by the market. If the league gets a better CBA (or if they gain additional revenues by TV revenues, etc., or if they cut expenses in other areas) is not going to be passed along to the fans.

Teams will charge the fans based on what the market dictates, and I have no complaints with that. But once again, the commissioner should not state otherwise.

1. Virtually anything you have bought in the past 7 years is more expensive today than it was 7 years ago. Inflation drives that without any other factors. To think that ticket prices would be less over a 7 year period of time is illogical in my opinion.

2. The NHL was paying 74% of hockey revenues on salaries prior to the end of the last CBA. If growth was the same, that would mean the NHL would have had to pay 17% more to the players last season had the CBA not been structured down. That is $561 million on $3.3 billion in revenue. Considered the NHL as a league had a profit of around $140 million last year it would have had a shortfall of over $400 million. Who would have paid for that?

Theoretically, the ticker prices were likely substantially lower give the structure of the last CBA. Revenue has increased because of increase in attendance, marketing improvements, tv contracts, and yes ticket prices. However, ticket prices are far down the list on the list of biggest impacts.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 08/30/2012 : 08:38:22

I don't understand your logic. On one hand, you make the assertion that ticket prices are market driven, and have nothing to do with costs. "Ticket prices will be as high as the market will tolerate" is what you stated. And on the other hand, you make the assertion that fans are paying lower because of the last CBA.

It seems to me that teams will strive to charge the fans as much as they can (and I'm not blaming them) regardless of the CBA or player costs.

And that's how business works. You can't simply add up your costs and say to your customer "here's what I have to charge you because of my costs." Businesses will charge as much as they can to stay in business and be competitive, and at the same time, do whatever they can to keep their costs down. And if businesses can save money on the cost side, this increases their bottom line. Rarely would cost savings be passed along to the paying customer. Especially if you have paying customers like NHL fans who continuously (and willingly) pay more for the product on the ice.

I'm not complaining, but once again, for Bettman to state that a better CBA would result in lower costs to fans, is in my opinion, close to ludicrous. If you're buying that, fine, but regardless of the new CBA, ticket prices will be whatever the market dictates. (Kinda what you stated earlier.)

And that's how business works. You can't simply add up your costs and say to your customer "here's what I have to charge you because of my costs." Businesses will charge as much as they can to stay in business and be competitive, and at the same time, do whatever they can to keep their costs down. And if businesses can save money on the cost side, this increases their bottom line. Rarely would cost savings be passed along to the paying customer. Especially if you have paying customers like NHL fans who continuously (and willingly) pay more for the product on the ice.

In the case of the NHL, the CBA was the owners way of "doing whatever they can to save money on the csot side, this increases their bottom lines."

You also point out very well that, "Rarely would cost savings be passed along to the paying customer."

So what is your original point again??

What is challenging about understanding that the NHL's revenue's increased by more than 50% but ticket prices increase by only 39%. This means the NHL WAS able to increase their revenue streams through areas other than increasing ticket prices (marketing, cost savings, etc) and they DID give that back to the fan by not increasing the ticket prices as the same rate as revenue.

You would have an argument if the ticket prices had increased at the same rate or more than revenues. But they didn't.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

according to Fehr, talks are recessed, nothing planned for the next 2 weeks - which takes us to the day before the CBA expires. No way this will get done before then, lockout seems imminent...

I'm curious - for other season ticket holders out there, have your respective teams sent any communication out regarding lockout contingencies? I have heard nothing from the Canucks, which is unusual - I recall during the last lockout they were all over "plan B" and refund plans well before the start of the season...

I'm not a season seat holder (yet) but am a minipack holder. Here's an excerpt from the communication I got from the Oilers...

"As you may be aware, the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association are currently engaged in the process of negotiating a successor to their current Collective Bargaining Agreement, which will expire on September 15, 2012. It is the League’s objective to successfully conclude negotiations for the new Agreement between now and September 15. In the event a new Agreement is not reached within this timeframe, however, and a work stoppage occurs, the Oilers have established the following options with respect to your 2012-13 Mini-Pack account:

Preferred Choice: Maintain your Mini-Pack account at its current fully-paid status throughout the duration of the work stoppage, and you will receive 4% annual interest on your account balance during the work stoppage.

Minimum Payment: At your discretion, you may reduce the current balance of your Mini-Pack account. If at any point after September 14 your account balance is reduced to less than the full value of your ticket package, you will receive 1% annual interest on your account balance during the work stoppage.

Regardless of the option you select, you must maintain the minimum 50% deposit in your account at all times to maintain your right to purchase your Mini-Pack seats.Interest will be calculated on your account balance using simple daily interest starting September 15, 2012 and ending when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached or February 28, 2013, whichever occurs first.

Your Mini-Pack tickets will be mailed to you immediately after a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached. If there is a change to the Oilers home schedule and it results in less than the current number of games in your Mini-Pack, your account will automatically be credited for any lost games on a pro rata basis."

As I mentioned this is for mini-packs but I assume that a similar plan is in place for season seat holders.

I'm not a season seat holder (yet) but am a minipack holder. Here's an excerpt from the communication I got from the Oilers...

"As you may be aware, the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Players’ Association are currently engaged in the process of negotiating a successor to their current Collective Bargaining Agreement, which will expire on September 15, 2012. It is the League’s objective to successfully conclude negotiations for the new Agreement between now and September 15. In the event a new Agreement is not reached within this timeframe, however, and a work stoppage occurs, the Oilers have established the following options with respect to your 2012-13 Mini-Pack account:

Preferred Choice: Maintain your Mini-Pack account at its current fully-paid status throughout the duration of the work stoppage, and you will receive 4% annual interest on your account balance during the work stoppage.

Minimum Payment: At your discretion, you may reduce the current balance of your Mini-Pack account. If at any point after September 14 your account balance is reduced to less than the full value of your ticket package, you will receive 1% annual interest on your account balance during the work stoppage.

Regardless of the option you select, you must maintain the minimum 50% deposit in your account at all times to maintain your right to purchase your Mini-Pack seats.Interest will be calculated on your account balance using simple daily interest starting September 15, 2012 and ending when a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached or February 28, 2013, whichever occurs first.

Your Mini-Pack tickets will be mailed to you immediately after a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached. If there is a change to the Oilers home schedule and it results in less than the current number of games in your Mini-Pack, your account will automatically be credited for any lost games on a pro rata basis."

As I mentioned this is for mini-packs but I assume that a similar plan is in place for season seat holders.

OK, so it sounds like other teams are thinking forward... still nothing from the Canucks.

I hope you're going to keep your package fully paid up - you won't get 4% interest on your money anywhere else these days

I thought I would share another article which highlights how the owners are essentially painting themselves into a corner where the players have to bail them out from the owners own bad decisions. This article was not meant by me to harp on the Oilers, whom I believe are securing some of the best talent they can get there hands on.

If the Oilers can put $78 million aside for 2 players with less than 4 years of NHL experience between them for the next 6-7 years, one of which has lost 38 man games during that time, can the team still cry foul at the pay system they are creating. The Oilers are not the problem, but they have the same symptoms that Bettman and the Ownership group insist the player's must fix by taking pay cuts. The owners need to draft an agreement between owners with hard rules regarding cap and revenue sharing and quit blaming the players for there own mess.

Best way to accomplish that is to untie revenue from player payroll permanently. Put a soft cap in place, from an ownership prospective, in which the rich owners have to pay into a penalty pool $2 for ever $1 dollar above cap, into a pool with the proceeds split between low revenue teams if they spend above the cap.

I dont think a low revenue team should be reward more if the spend beyond means either. I think the teams above the cap pay into the pool and the revenue is split equally to teams in the lower 50% of revenue earnings.

Firstly, let's deal with the dumbest idea in sports today, the soft salary cap. Take a look at the NBA and MLB, both league who today have a soft cap. Take a look at the playoff pictures in both leagues and recognize that it is the same teams in the playoffs and winning most of the time. That is because the 'have' teams always spend the money on payroll and get the best players and the 'have not' teams can not afford it, even with the luxury tax revenue sharing ideas.

It simply does not work and has proven not to work.

Now, I love this quote:

The owners need to draft an agreement between owners with hard rules regarding cap and revenue sharing and quit blaming the players for there own mess.

You are 100%. It is called the CBA. Even though the agreement is between the league and the players, it also defines the rules all the owners and GM's have to play by.

Finally, I am seriously sick to my stomach with all the sympathy the players are getting recently.

Let's me give a comparison for people:

Every single NHL player gets paid every cent of his contract. It doesn't matter if they over produce, under produce, get injuried, or anything else. As long as they have a spot on a roster of an NHL team, they get paid.

On the flip side, the owner only gets paid if he performs. He has to have a army of people all doing their jobs the right way and to the best of their abilities to get paid. He has to have the right formula on the ice, the right formula off the ice, and also has to get lucky in their as well.

I think it's fair to say that the owner has far more risk involved in this business than the player does.

So ask yourself these question:

If you were the one putting all your cash at risk, would you be willing to not take the bigger chunk of the reward???

If you took your money to a financial advisor and they said they were going to take 60% of what you made on your investments last year off the top. If you make money after that, you keep it. If you lose money, oh well. I will then take another 60% of what you make next year, and so on. Would you sign that deal??

I wouldn't either.

Lock'em out. Let them sit for a year, 2 years, 3 years. Whatever it takes. The owners own the league, the players are employees. Every other pro league in the world is around the 50% revenue sharing mark. Stop the greed and sign the effin deal or sit on your junk and rot.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

1) A player agent (Allen Walsh) comes out with the tweet "the NHLPA has told the NHL players are willing to play and continue to negotiate if an agreement isn't reached by Sept. 15."

hmm.

2) The NHLPA is hoping Quebec's labour laws will keep members of the Montreal Canadiens from being locked out by the NHL, as the NHLPA isn't certified by the Quebec Labour Board.

hmmmmm!

3) Reports coming in fast and furious that Gary Bettman has indeed been genetically linked to the muppets, and that he may in fact be The Count.

Ok, ok, that last one was for humour. But the other stuff is interesting, no? There has been talk that the players are willing to play and continue to negotiate while the season goes on . . . sure sounds like the players want to play!

Don't get caught up in the propaganda. The players have said for more than a year they would continue play without and agreement. At the same time the owners have said thy would not start the season without a new deal.

The owners wanted o get started on negotiations early because of his. The players drug their feet because they wanted one more year under this agreement. It's to the player's advantage to play an there wouldn't be any sense of urgency if they are playing. It's nothe PA ploy to gin public sympathy.

As far as the Montreal labour law thing, no sure how much that matters if the other 29 teams are locked out. Who's Montreal going to play against? But I guess players would hav to get paid without the lockout.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest0493 ( )

Posted - 09/11/2012 : 19:18:59

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Let's make sure we painting the entire pictures.

- the NHL's goal is not to you happy. Thier goal is to make money. Ticket prices will be as high as the market will tolerate. Clearly people are willing to pay as attendance has increased as fast or faster than the increase in ticket prices. Even if the league gets their way ticket prices will not drop. The price of the ticket is not linked to player salaries or league revenue. It will always cost as much as can be tolerated.- NHL revenue has increases by more than the rate of ticket price increases. This means the NHL is getting bigger marketing dollars then ever before. Who is responsible for that? - Before you look at Bettman's salary you might want to take a look at Donald Fehr's salary. It's more than a million more per year Bettman's. Think about that for a second: the millionaire players are spending more than a million more each year to protect their income than the billionaire owners are spending on Bettman.-Bettman is the lowest paid leader of the pro sports league even though the NHL is 3rd in revenue and profit. - Bettman is doing exactly what the owners want him to Edo 20 yrs in the league and now three labour issues later should tell you enough by now. If he was not doing what the owners wanted he would have been sent packing years ago.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Fehr doesn't make a million a year more than Bettman. Give your head a shake!

And since when does the NHL have more revenue than the nba, MLB or nfl ?

- according to wikipedia, the NHL is 4th in North America (5th globally) in terms of overall revenue, behind NFL, MLB, and NBA. I cannot find anything definitive regarding profitability.

I had heard on the radio that for the first time ever, the NHL generated more revenue than the NBA, but of course no hard figures were thrown around at all, and it's quite difficult to determine of course. And it really depends on what factors one considers.

But it is quite laughable that the players can point to the league making more money as a reason to continue to get well over 50% of the revenue, when it's the owners taking all the risk as Beans said. Totally ludicrous, especially in the light of the fact that the exponentially higher rate of increase in player salaries would not even be possible, were it not for NHL owners to try and run some kind of profit, etc (which half the league doesn't even do, at this point, remember).

So yes, I really don't think the players have a leg to stand on morally or logically. And quite frankly, I see them folding like a cheap seat in October, and we have hockey in November is my prediction.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest5890 ( )

Posted - 09/13/2012 : 13:12:38

While it's obvious, it should be noted that the players (most who are incorporated) keep all of their money, less any taxes. While the owners have considerable expenses to pay with their portion of "revenue sharing.". Most are lucky to keep (or make) 10% or more with their portion. Which is business they're in after all, and that's the "privilege" of owning a sports team.

Guest0493 ( )

Posted - 09/15/2012 : 07:57:35

Do not forget the significant amount owners earn through the capital appreciation of owning the team. I think that the increase in the value of the average team is indicative that the players should not need to reduce their share of revenues. Unlike in the last lockout when there were significant problems with the economics of the league, this negotiation seems like the owners are seeking to set the cap according to the needs of the weakest franchises and that the strong franchises will earn windfall profits. I would prefer to negotiations revolve around lowering the salary floor, which I think is the real problem for weak franchises, instead of lowering the cap, which will simply allow Toronto, Mel,van,ny, Bos, etc to make huge profits at the expense of the players without actually adding any additional value.

I read a article in the National Post today which states that the NHL is using the past negotiations from NBA and the NFL as benchmarks for their request for lower cap and a rollback on wages. The NFL and NBA have seen no lowering of wages but a cap structure change which once implemented had no effect on future contracts as the cap remained roughly the same. Some teams who were force to spend to the cap to avoid penalties and had no choice but to put that back in the pocket of players in there respected leagues.

Further more the NHL is contesting status quo on future growth of the NHL revenue citing one time revenue increase's due to relocting Atlanta to a profitable Winnipeg market. These once time revenue increases are common place, such as if Pheonix or another low value franchise is relocated to a profitable market such as Quebec, Ontario, Seattle or even Kansas City. Simply moving Pheonix or another struggling team to Quebec City would double the revenue and value of the Franchise and the League would receive a one time relocation fee from the new owners, some Analyst expect this to be in the 100's of Millions should they encroach upon Toronto or Montreals territory. The NHL in 2014 will be renegotiating television contract rights with Canadian Broadcasters and would then add another one time revenue increase for the league during the new CBA.

It stated the escrow payments which the League has used in 5 of the 7 years of the current CBA have effectively taken back wages from players which they receive at the end of the escrow. The League sets the Cap based on revenue and in 5 of the 7 years there projections have fallen short, yet the league has posted record growth on revenue.

It is hard to side with the owners based on the arguements they have brought forth. The only thing I can seem to agree with is 57% of the revenue goes to player payroll. I can understand why they would wish it to be in the 50/50 range. 43% range was an insult, 46% is closer, the PA offer of a staggered reduction ending in the 52% range and no roll back seems a lot closer to more equitable position. Not tieing player payroll to revenue increase, offering help to the struggling franchises from the huge increase the rich teams will receive once the CBA is negotiated seems to be a better fix than throwing huge money back into the pockets of franchise already making huge profits.

Hopefully the Owners of the 20 have not teams will wake up soon and leverage the rich teams to add elements of the players proposal, come to the plate with 50% and start playing hockey

I fancy myself a logical and real world thinkers. Here are my very simple arguments to anyone who sides with the players:

1. The lowest paid NHL player is getting 15-20 times the salary welter average person in the real world. Think about that for a second. The lowest paid player in the NHL playing a 3 yr "career" will make $2.2ish million dollars. If an 18 yr old started working at the average Canadian income($46000 per year) they would literally be at retirement age of 65 to make what the LOWEST paid NHL player makes in 3 seasons.

2. The player has zero risk. They get paid. They can't lose a contract once signed, they can not get a pay deduction for not performing, nothing in the world will stop them from getting their money. Nothing.

3. The owner has 100% of the risk. If the fans are not in the seats, if there is not enough merch sold, if they don't have concession selling food or what ever else, they don't get paid.

Here are the two most important point:

The person who takes the most risk is ENTITLED to the biggest piece of the reward.

If it was your money at risk, the is no way in the world you would agree to give up the majority of the reward. Not a chance.

Period.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Did you hear the new NHL 13 video game comes with a commissioner mode? You hit the disk with a hammer and no one gets to play hockey.

Now et off your couch and go to the rink in town and support hockey in your local communities. From Juniors down to Mites, get out there and cheer for the sport you love and leave the bickering and fighting to the highly over paid players and far to wealthy owners. I'm not listening to anything until the lockout is over. Go Oil Kings!!!!!!!!

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest0493 ( )

Posted - 09/16/2012 : 08:53:53

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I fancy myself a logical and real world thinkers. Here are my very simple arguments to anyone who sides with the players:

1. The lowest paid NHL player is getting 15-20 times the salary welter average person in the real world. Think about that for a second. The lowest paid player in the NHL playing a 3 yr "career" will make $2.2ish million dollars. If an 18 yr old started working at the average Canadian income($46000 per year) they would literally be at retirement age of 65 to make what the LOWEST paid NHL player makes in 3 seasons.

2. The player has zero risk. They get paid. They can't lose a contract once signed, they can not get a pay deduction for not performing, nothing in the world will stop them from getting their money. Nothing.

3. The owner has 100% of the risk. If the fans are not in the seats, if there is not enough merch sold, if they don't have concession selling food or what ever else, they don't get paid.

Here are the two most important point:

The person who takes the most risk is ENTITLED to the biggest piece of the reward.

If it was your money at risk, the is no way in the world you would agree to give up the majority of the reward. Not a chance.

Period.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

You do realize this isn't a typical labour negotiation where they are negotiating a wage? They are negotiating over a way to limit future negotiations over the players wage, essentially colluding which is illegal in every other industry. Every business has input costs which are generally set by the market. No business owner is entitled to make a profit. They have to manage their business skillfully enough as to earn a profit. The only thing forcing owners to sign contracts is the salary floor not the cap. No one forces owners to pay players salaries that, to use your terminology, deprives them of their reward. They sign these contracts on their own accord, if they are not disciplined enough to avoid contracts that eliminates their profit then that is their own fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded. To quote Michael Jordan " if you can't earn a profit then sell your team".

Every business has input costs which are generally set by the market. No business owner is entitled to make a profit. They have to manage their business skillfully enough as to earn a profit.

Managing your business skillfully means that you have full control over all expenditures. NHL owners have very little control over how their money gets spent:

- they must pay players 57% of their revenues- they must rent and maintain a gigantic stadium throughout the year- they must fly their players to 29 other cities for 9 months a year- while on the road, they must pay for all transportation, accommodations and food for said players- while at home, they feed and maintain their players as well.

When real businesses start running out of money, they cut back on things that make sense to cut back on - such as expensive meals out, travel budgets, expensive employees that don't hold their own. Hockey teams have no such ability.

quote:They sign these contracts on their own accord, if they are not disciplined enough to avoid contracts that eliminates their profit then that is their own fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded

Unfortunatly for owners, they are all part of a common league, where there are "haves" and "have-nots". You can argue that they all give out these ridiculous contracts, but the reality of the league is that if they don't, someone else will, and you're in competition with those that will.

We saw a great example of that with Weber and NSH this summer. NSH got outbid by a financially stronger team, and had to break the bank to keep their franchise player. Do you purposely make yourself a second rate team, thus depriving yourself of any ability to make future earnings? Where would NSH be headed if they had lost Weber? They knew where, and so they bit down and made the deal.

I agree that the salary floor is a big problem for the NHL, but I think an even bigger problem is unprofitable markets. No matter how skillfully you run your business, if your market does not support hockey, you will have trouble filling seats and generating revenue. The league as a whole has to produce an even playing field that even the weakest of teams can play on long term, hence a war over money.

If we had a league made up of 10 teams (VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG, TOR, MTL, CHI, NYR, PHI, BOS), the current CBA would probably be in place and we'd be getting ready for another season right now.

Guest0493 ( )

Posted - 09/16/2012 : 13:43:11

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:Originally posted by Guest0493

Every business has input costs which are generally set by the market. No business owner is entitled to make a profit. They have to manage their business skillfully enough as to earn a profit.

Managing your business skillfully means that you have full control over all expenditures. NHL owners have very little control over how their money gets spent:

- they must pay players 57% of their revenues- they must rent and maintain a gigantic stadium throughout the year- they must fly their players to 29 other cities for 9 months a year- while on the road, they must pay for all transportation, accommodations and food for said players- while at home, they feed and maintain their players as well.

When real businesses start running out of money, they cut back on things that make sense to cut back on - such as expensive meals out, travel budgets, expensive employees that don't hold their own. Hockey teams have no such ability.

quote:They sign these contracts on their own accord, if they are not disciplined enough to avoid contracts that eliminates their profit then that is their own fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded

Unfortunatly for owners, they are all part of a common league, where there are "haves" and "have-nots". You can argue that they all give out these ridiculous contracts, but the reality of the league is that if they don't, someone else will, and you're in competition with those that will.

We saw a great example of that with Weber and NSH this summer. NSH got outbid by a financially stronger team, and had to break the bank to keep their franchise player. Do you purposely make yourself a second rate team, thus depriving yourself of any ability to make future earnings? Where would NSH be headed if they had lost Weber? They knew where, and so they bit down and made the deal.

I agree that the salary floor is a big problem for the NHL, but I think an even bigger problem is unprofitable markets. No matter how skillfully you run your business, if your market does not support hockey, you will have trouble filling seats and generating revenue. The league as a whole has to produce an even playing field that even the weakest of teams can play on long term, hence a war over money.

If we had a league made up of 10 teams (VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG, TOR, MTL, CHI, NYR, PHI, BOS), the current CBA would probably be in place and we'd be getting ready for another season right now.

They don't have to pay out 57%, that is the cap. They have to pay out the floor, which I believe is 54%. Leave the cap at 57 and lower the floor to 50 or 47 or whatever.

Guest9894 ( )

Posted - 09/16/2012 : 20:09:37

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

I fancy myself a logical and real world thinkers. Here are my very simple arguments to anyone who sides with the players:

1. The lowest paid NHL player is getting 15-20 times the salary welter average person in the real world. Think about that for a second. The lowest paid player in the NHL playing a 3 yr "career" will make $2.2ish million dollars. If an 18 yr old started working at the average Canadian income($46000 per year) they would literally be at retirement age of 65 to make what the LOWEST paid NHL player makes in 3 seasons.

2. The player has zero risk. They get paid. They can't lose a contract once signed, they can not get a pay deduction for not performing, nothing in the world will stop them from getting their money. Nothing.

3. The owner has 100% of the risk. If the fans are not in the seats, if there is not enough merch sold, if they don't have concession selling food or what ever else, they don't get paid.

Here are the two most important point:

The person who takes the most risk is ENTITLED to the biggest piece of the reward.

If it was your money at risk, the is no way in the world you would agree to give up the majority of the reward. Not a chance.

Period.

Good points. Here is the players two most important points.

1. The owners locked them out the last time and wanted cost certainty. They linked salary to a revenue (and remember a big battle was made on what is and isn't hockey related revenue). Owners got everything they wanted back in 2004 when they asked the players to take a pay cut, accept a cap and include entry level limits.2. In 2012, they owners are asking for another roll back and reduce % HRR amongts other things.

In essence the owners got everything they wanted in 2004. Then screwed themselves over by paying the players more and more with ridiculous salaries. This is right after Minny handed out ~$200M for 2 players and Nashville/Philly offering ~$100M+ for one player. Ridiculous.

The owners are screwed up, they want to keep costs down but are willing to outbid each other at ridiculous prices for players. Help us from ourselves. The owners are unable to manage themselves so they are asking the players to take a hit for their mistakes. Sure the owners take the risks, but they did so of their own choice by making ridiculous contract offers.

Hey the players are no saints either but don't be so one sided with your argument.

NHLPA assume revenue will always increase. So if revenues decrease, would they be willing to take a pay cut?

I am far from one sided in is argument. The owners are 100% to blame for the situation getting to where is was in 2004 and where it is today. But two wrongs do not make right. The owners were able to take the salary expense from 74% prior to '04 to 57% after 2004. That number wA likely too high but they had already lost an entire season so they make the concession. The media and PA will try to make you think the players game the concession but I believe the owner did.

And yes, the hundred million deals are insane. But can you tells me How that will be fixed other than making fundamental changes to the CBA?

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Every business has input costs which are generally set by the market. No business owner is entitled to make a profit. They have to manage their business skillfully enough as to earn a profit.

Managing your business skillfully means that you have full control over all expenditures. NHL owners have very little control over how their money gets spent:

- they must pay players 57% of their revenues- they must rent and maintain a gigantic stadium throughout the year- they must fly their players to 29 other cities for 9 months a year- while on the road, they must pay for all transportation, accommodations and food for said players- while at home, they feed and maintain their players as well.

When real businesses start running out of money, they cut back on things that make sense to cut back on - such as expensive meals out, travel budgets, expensive employees that don't hold their own. Hockey teams have no such ability.

quote:They sign these contracts on their own accord, if they are not disciplined enough to avoid contracts that eliminates their profit then that is their own fault and they do not deserve to be rewarded

Unfortunatly for owners, they are all part of a common league, where there are "haves" and "have-nots". You can argue that they all give out these ridiculous contracts, but the reality of the league is that if they don't, someone else will, and you're in competition with those that will.

We saw a great example of that with Weber and NSH this summer. NSH got outbid by a financially stronger team, and had to break the bank to keep their franchise player. Do you purposely make yourself a second rate team, thus depriving yourself of any ability to make future earnings? Where would NSH be headed if they had lost Weber? They knew where, and so they bit down and made the deal.

I agree that the salary floor is a big problem for the NHL, but I think an even bigger problem is unprofitable markets. No matter how skillfully you run your business, if your market does not support hockey, you will have trouble filling seats and generating revenue. The league as a whole has to produce an even playing field that even the weakest of teams can play on long term, hence a war over money.

If we had a league made up of 10 teams (VAN, CGY, EDM, WPG, TOR, MTL, CHI, NYR, PHI, BOS), the current CBA would probably be in place and we'd be getting ready for another season right now.

They don't have to pay out 57%, that is the cap. They have to pay out the floor, which I believe is 54%. Leave the cap at 57 and lower the floor to 50 or 47 or whatever.

Umm, WRONG!!!!!

Here are the actual portions of the current CBA that prove how incorrect this statement is.

League-wide Player Compensation for a League Year shall equal (i.e., shall never exceed nor be less than) the Players' Share for that League Year.

For any League Year (other than the 2005-06 League Year) for which Actual HRR is equal to or exceeds $2.7 billion, the Players' Share shall be fifty-seven (57) percent of Actual HRR for such League Year.

This is where the escrow accounts come in. The players have to put in a portion of the salaries into an account so if the league revenue is less the owners get cash back. If the revenue is higher the players get their escrow.

The players get every penny they are "owed" every single time.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Edited by - Beans15 on 09/17/2012 06:03:21

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 09/17/2012 : 08:58:51

quote:Originally posted by Beans15And yes, the hundred million deals are insane. But can you tells me How that will be fixed other than making fundamental changes to the CBA?

Not make these kinds of deals. Players can't sign them if the owners/GMs don't offer them. If the owners/GMs aren't able to control themselves, how is that the players' fault?

quote:Originally posted by Beans15And yes, the hundred million deals are insane. But can you tells me How that will be fixed other than making fundamental changes to the CBA?

Not make these kinds of deals. Players can't sign them if the owners/GMs don't offer them. If the owners/GMs aren't able to control themselves, how is that the players' fault?

As Nuxfan discussed, there will always be 'have' and 'have not' teams. These guys are competing with each other and if a have not team won't pony up the cash then a have team will. The players aren't going to complain as they are making the cash. There is no way to police that without a firm cap tied to a reasonable HRR formula.

Let's be realistic for a second. These owners will try to find every single loophole possible as soon as the deal is signed. That is the nature of the beast and something that is not going away. Ever. And not a single player will ever complain about a loophole that will pay them more money.

For example, it's not Kovalchuk's fault the owner in NJ paid him $100 for 15 years. It's not the owners fault the CBA allowed him to do it. The problem is the CBA itself.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 09/17/2012 : 11:43:31

It is the owner's fault for trying to circumvent the CBA in every way possible.

It is not the CBA's fault to allow the owner's to sign $100M+ contracts.

It is the owner's fault for trying to circumvent the CBA in every way possible.

It is not the CBA's fault to allow the owner's to sign $100M+ contracts.

if you have a CBA in place that allows an owner to sign a player to that ridiculous contract, then the CBA is at fault. Sometimes a legally binding agreement, however good its initial intention, is not binding enough.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4249 ( )

Posted - 09/17/2012 : 21:32:44

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

The contract is legal witin the CBA.

Not the owners fault they are allowed to do it.

Not the players fault they are demanding the value of it.

Who's fault is it??

1. The fans fault for willing to pay for the entertainment.2. The owners fault. They need to have an agreement amongst themselves on how they want to deal with the employees. Why involve the players when it is the owners that have a problem?3. The players fault for playing for whomever is willing to pay the most for their services like you and me.

So you need 3 agreements. One for the owners and the owner group. Here is the rule if you are willing to put up hundreds of millions to join the membership of owners.

The other for owner and the players. This is the current CBA as we know it.

The final one is the most important an agreement for the owners, players and fans. This one sort of already exist but nothing formal. Fans pay the tickets, players entertain and the owners put up the facilities to entertain. This agreement is always the first to be broken with no consideration of the fans. Why because like owners, some moron is willing to pay $100 and another $101 and so on to watch a game.

Who's fault is the current mess of the old CBA. Why that would be the gentleman who negotiated it in the first place. Salary Cap tied to revenue, revenue excelated due to on ice product generating greater revenue than expectations. Teams using current system to lock up talent for as long as possible at current market value. The teams and players are working within the system put in place by the very people who negotiated the last broke CBA system. I put the blame on the people who created the system then cry foul that the system is broken.

IMO, Bettman the ownership group demanded this system, made the players work within it and now want to change it again because they dont like what they demanded for during the last round of negotiations. If Ovechkin is making (more) in the KHL than the 65% guarantee the KHL says they will pay for NHL players tax free, then he is getting market value. The NHL can't say this players contract is above market value and hope to pay him less if they expect him to honour a contract they wish to pay him less. Ovechkin is just an example, but a good representation of my siding with the players during this round of CBA.